Hot Topics:

guest column: LUNENBURG FORFEIT

-- 5 MONTHS LATER No resolution, no apology and still a lot of questions

Sentinel & Enterprise

Updated:
04/20/2014 06:31:09 AM EDT

By Sam Pawlak

Guest Column

What was the real reason for the Lunenburg High School football team's forfeit? As reported in the Nov. 19 Sentinel & Enterprise, the superintendent at her press conference stated that the forfeit was because of "multiple racial incidents" and "We have no tolerance for racism." Guess what? Not a single mention about safety (in the paper), yet every single article after the football team was cleared of any involvement in the graffiti incident the superintendent, School Committee, and selectmen are all saying the forfeit was because of safety issues. Not a single mention of racism any more. Was it racism or safety? Pick one, I guess. Wouldn't you think if the real reason for the forfeit was because it was too dangerous to play it would have been mentioned at the press conference?

So we have a situation now in which verbal racial slurs by football players on two separate occasions don't cause a forfeit, but racial graffiti does, even though no one has the slightest idea if it was done by a football player.

Advertisement

Is that because the written slur is more offensive than a verbal slur, or is it because the written slur targeted a Lunenburg student? Or was it really because of safety concerns?

What were the safety issues that everyone was talking about after the football team was cleared? Did the superintendent have actual information that busloads of people from Worcester and Fitchburg might be coming to the game to attack players and fans, or is it possible the superintendent was calling the media circus and the inevitable distractions a dangerous situation? Is the "highly charged emotional environment" (sounds like a Fitchburg-Leominster Thanksgiving game to me) the superintendent talks about just the presence of the press and TV cameras? I would suggest the real reason for the forfeit was that because of the mother's accusations and people's assumption it was a football player, she had to do something -- before the you-know-what hit the fan. All of this despite her assertion that at no time did she or any employee of the schools implicate any of the players. I think it's fair to say that when it became clear that racism wasn't a valid reason to forfeit the spin went to safety issues.

Now we come to the most absurd spin of all -- that the forfeit shouldn't be viewed as punishment. You don't have to be a high-priced lawyer to figure it out -- all you need to be is old enough to still have a dictionary. Punishment: the infliction or imposition of a penalty (forfeit) as retribution for an offense (racial graffiti allegedly done by a football player). Forfeit: Something that is lost or given up as punishment or because of a rule of law? Yes, right in the definition -- punishment! Even though several prominent adults in Lunenburg don't think it was punishment, does anyone think the kids are buying it? No, they have too much common sense!

For the benefit of the members of the football team, here is the bottom line: The School Department, because of a lack of urgency (almost three weeks and only after the graffiti incident is there an apology to Worcester) pr perhaps incompetency (somebody should have been able to figure out with social media and the fact students have an information and communication network that would be the envy of the CIA, word would have been out on the street in a couple of days if a student was involved), allowed the situation to get completely out of control, and its solution to the problem it created was to punish (forfeit) you for something you didn't do and then try to convince you that punishing you was really in your best interest and it had no other choice because of safety issues. As reported in the paper, several prominent adults in the community are buying this spin, but is the football team? No, you are too smart and have way too much common sense! Do you think if you had a better team this year and needed those games for a chance to play at Gillette stadium for a state championship the school might have been able to resolve the safety concerns?

The fact is the superintendent did have more than one choice. The first was the easiest and safest -- forfeit in the name of safety, or was it racism? The other choice would have been to make the statement that in Lunenburg fairness and justice is as important as tolerance and diversity, and, more importantly, you are innocent until proven guilty. She could have said in the absence of any proof connecting a football player to the incident the games will be played. A tougher choice, but superintendents make the big bucks to make tough decisions, not easy ones. Now the superintendent and School Committee are looking for ways to help the community heal and move forward. I have a much simpler solution to help the healing process than any special programs or committees. In schools we call this a teaching moment -- a lesson to be learned by the real victims and the only people who matter in this fiasco -- the kids! That lesson would be that some adults in a position of authority are willing to admit they made a mistake, were wrong, and are willing to take responsibility for their actions. You can debate whether mistakes were made or not but there is something that can't be debated -- you were wrong! The superintendent and School Committee chairman need to apologize -- in public, in the Sentinel & Enterprise to the Lunenburg, Oakmont and St. Bernard's football teams for punishing them for something they didn't do. While you are at it, you should apologize to the entire St. Bernard's community for ruining their Thanksgiving game. Am I the only one who was surprised there was never a mention in the paper about the impact of the forfeit on Oakmont or St. Bernard's? Did anyone in Lunenburg care about those two schools?

Finally, let me know when you are having the candlelight vigil for the real victims, the three football teams. I'll be there and will bring a couple of busload of kids with me!

Two final questions: Is the other shoe ever going to drop on this incident and will I be safe if I'm ever seen in Lunenburg?

Sam Pawlak is a former principal of Nashoba Regional High School in Bolton and a former Fitchburg School Committee member.

Welcome to your discussion forum: Sign in with a Disqus account or your social networking account for your comment to be posted immediately, provided it meets the guidelines. (READ HOW.)
Comments made here are the sole responsibility of the person posting them; these comments do not reflect the opinion of The Sentinel and Enterprise. So keep it civil.